Page 15 of 17 [ 263 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

30 Mar 2011, 7:44 pm

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
ikorack wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
ikorack wrote:
@Tea There is no academic study on false rape claims. I can't imagine such a study being easy either, it would rely mostly on the willingness of someone to admit to a crime. Combine that with unreported rapes and it would be damn near impossible to get an honest number,


Yes, I realize that. Claiming legitimate victims should have their character attacked because a small percentage of reported cases are false is rather odd.

The fact that many more cases go unreported makes it even less likely that a woman saying she was raped is lying.


? The fact that we have no idea how many false rapes there are in comparison to true rapes makes it unlikely we can say whether a rape claim is likely false or true. No one is claiming anyone should have their character attacked. It would just be best to stick as close to a fair trial as possible. Which will not get done if defenses are cut off on an emotional basis.


How is it considered a fair trial when the victim is being asked what she wore the night of the alleged assault and what their sexual history was with the accused? Those things are not the least bit relevant in determining whether or not the victim was raped by the accused or not.


Then the judge can put a stop to it. We(We'll America and Canada, don' know about elsewhere) do have laws limiting those defenses already though so I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up it's an issue that's been dealt with legally.



TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

30 Mar 2011, 7:48 pm

ikorack wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:

How is it considered a fair trial when the victim is being asked what she wore the night of the alleged assault and what their sexual history was with the accused? Those things are not the least bit relevant in determining whether or not the victim was raped by the accused or not.


Then the judge can put a stop to it. We(We'll America and Canada, don' know about elsewhere) do have laws limiting those defenses already though so I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up it's an issue that's been dealt with legally.


The problem is many judges *don't* put a stop to it. In fact, some even buy into it and declare the victim partially to blame for their assault.

So tell me, how is a rape victim supposed to handle that?


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

30 Mar 2011, 7:48 pm

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
ikorack wrote:

The child has a right to both parents and both parents can learn to take care of their child, there is no reason to assume that only one parent is capable just because that is how the work was divvied during marriage.


When a couple splits up, what's best for the child/ren involved is what's of the most concern. For some, an even split of custody is best, for others the father being the primary caregiver is what's best.


For some yes when one parent has been proven as harmful to the child. Otherwise why shouldn't it be shared?

Quote:
The point is that children shouldn't automatically go to the mother.


The point is contact with both parents should be the default, one parent households have already been shown as more harmful to children.(Link) There is no reason to cut out one parent based on a status quo that's ending.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

30 Mar 2011, 7:50 pm

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
ikorack wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:

How is it considered a fair trial when the victim is being asked what she wore the night of the alleged assault and what their sexual history was with the accused? Those things are not the least bit relevant in determining whether or not the victim was raped by the accused or not.


Then the judge can put a stop to it. We(We'll America and Canada, don' know about elsewhere) do have laws limiting those defenses already though so I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up it's an issue that's been dealt with legally.


The problem is many judges *don't* put a stop to it. In fact, some even buy into it and declare the victim partially to blame for their assault.

So tell me, how is a rape victim supposed to handle that?


Judges do not buy into that sh*t, prove so or shut your cob, the only people who buy into that s**t are the media and the people they sell to.



TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

30 Mar 2011, 7:50 pm

Nobody suggested cutting out one parent. That should only ever be done in cases of abuse.


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

30 Mar 2011, 7:52 pm

ikorack wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
ikorack wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:

How is it considered a fair trial when the victim is being asked what she wore the night of the alleged assault and what their sexual history was with the accused? Those things are not the least bit relevant in determining whether or not the victim was raped by the accused or not.


Then the judge can put a stop to it. We(We'll America and Canada, don' know about elsewhere) do have laws limiting those defenses already though so I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up it's an issue that's been dealt with legally.


The problem is many judges *don't* put a stop to it. In fact, some even buy into it and declare the victim partially to blame for their assault.

So tell me, how is a rape victim supposed to handle that?


Judges do not buy into that sh*t, prove so or shut your cob, the only people who buy into that sh** are the media and the people they sell to.


lol I already told you I am not here to prove I'm right. You are free not to believe me if you so choose. No skin off my back.


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

30 Mar 2011, 7:53 pm

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
ikorack wrote:

The child has a right to both parents and both parents can learn to take care of their child, there is no reason to assume that only one parent is capable just because that is how the work was divvied during marriage.


When a couple splits up, what's best for the child/ren involved is what's of the most concern. For some, an even split of custody is best, for others the father being the primary caregiver is what's best.

The point is that children shouldn't automatically go to the mother.

They don't. They go to the parent who was most involved with their care during the marriage.



TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

30 Mar 2011, 7:54 pm

LKL wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
ikorack wrote:

The child has a right to both parents and both parents can learn to take care of their child, there is no reason to assume that only one parent is capable just because that is how the work was divvied during marriage.


When a couple splits up, what's best for the child/ren involved is what's of the most concern. For some, an even split of custody is best, for others the father being the primary caregiver is what's best.

The point is that children shouldn't automatically go to the mother.

They don't. They go to the parent who was most involved with their care during the marriage.


That depends largely on the couple and what state we're talking about, actually.


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

30 Mar 2011, 7:54 pm

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Nobody suggested cutting out one parent. That should only ever be done in cases of abuse.


That is the current state, the court assigns a primary custody parent and then refuses to enforce any visitation rights. Heck when you assume the one parent is better than another on traits that obviously don't have to be maintained your effectively enforcing the former division of labor. Unless the primary custodian takes some kind of support they won't be able to maintain it.



TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

30 Mar 2011, 7:56 pm

ikorack wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Nobody suggested cutting out one parent. That should only ever be done in cases of abuse.


That is the current state, the court assigns a primary custody parent and then refuses to enforce any visitation rights. Heck when you assume the one parent is better than another on traits that obviously don't have to be maintained your effectively enforcing the former division of labor. Unless the primary custodian takes some kind of support they won't be able to maintain it.


It's true that some courts don't enforce visitation rights to the non-custodial parent, but there have been many cases where a non-custodial parent won custody on the basis of parental alienation.


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

30 Mar 2011, 9:56 pm

LKL wrote:


I don't see what any of these have to do with points I raised. EDIT: Which is to say individual cases do not prove that a law is conductive to unnecessary abuse. , Also I am focusing on countries who's feminists movements are established, some of these cases are from countries who are just now starting to receive feminist movements.

Quote:


The first is not a comment on the courts behavior but the media and the internets, it also outlines the opinion that the previous relationship(EDIT: That is the previous relationship between defendant and alleged victim) is not relevant to the trial which is false, if the man had shown signs of aggression such as battery towards the woman would that not be admitted? Even then a previous relationship would not wipe away a rape claim, so their point seems silly to me.

Quote:
1.) when it is offered "to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury or other physical evidence," (2) when it is offered to prove consent and it consists of "specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim with respect to the person accused," or (3) when the exclusion of the evidence "would violate the constitutional rights of the defendant." The first, narrow exception is appropriate, especially when misidentification of the perpetrator is a common evidentiary issue in stranger and inter-racial rape cases.

The second and third exceptions to the federal shield (and to analogous state shields), however, render the armor defective. The second exception—the admission of sexual history with the defendant—cracks the shield because, according to the Department of Justice, 62 percent of adult rapes are committed by prior intimates—spouses, ex-spouses, boyfriends, or ex-boyfriends. The third exception—the admission of evidence when its exclusion would violate the defendant’s constitutional rights—often crumbles what is left of the shield because courts routinely misinterpret and exaggerate the scope of the defendant’s constitutional right to inquire into the complainant’s sexual history, particularly when the complainant is deemed promiscuous with the defendant or others.


She takes offense at the exceptions to the federal rape shield laws all of which are reasonable. From here there are several things for me to take issue with but I am not up to that, which parts are you using for your argument? And what exactly is your argument.

Second link points to
Quote:
Far from being lucky, Black's sexual encounter turned out to be a stroke of bad luck both for him and for rape law reformers. The rape case arising out of it, Doe v. United States, 1 held that evidence of the victim's "promiscuity" was admissible to support the defendant's assertion that he reasonably but mistakenly believed that the victim had consented to sex. 2


Which is a specific and reasonable exception so I am not certain what your argument for this is either.

The third link points to exceptions that I can agree are unreasonable. But that is a proposal not a passed law.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

31 Mar 2011, 4:02 pm

haven't read the posts since my last visit, but wanted to drop off this link as relevant to this thread:
http://www.salon.com/life/scott_adams/i ... s_movement



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

31 Mar 2011, 7:23 pm

LKL wrote:
haven't read the posts since my last visit, but wanted to drop off this link as relevant to this thread:
http://www.salon.com/life/scott_adams/i ... s_movement


Yeah I thought the Scott Adams thing was a joke seems people took it seriously, I suppose he could just be a dick.



MotherKnowsBest
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,196

01 Apr 2011, 4:51 am

The last pocket of Swedish resistance to feminism has finally been converted to the cause:

http://www.thelocal.se/32946/20110401/



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

01 Apr 2011, 7:24 am

MotherKnowsBest wrote:
The last pocket of Swedish resistance to feminism has finally been converted to the cause:

http://www.thelocal.se/32946/20110401/


All right, my bags are packed.

:D


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.